The Influence of External Contextual and Firm‐Specific Stakeholder Voices on Banks' Greenwashing: Effective Monitoring or an Incentive to Deceive?

This article investigates the role of external stakeholder “voices” in shaping banks' greenwashing behaviors. We categorize these voices into two groups: “contextual” voices, including regulations, a country's climate change performance, and public attention, and “firm‐specific” voices, represented by ESG (environmental, social, and governance) ratings and analyst coverage. The distinction between these categories lies in their scope: contextual voices affect industries and companies collectively, while firm‐specific voices pertain to individual firms. We apply a panel data analysis to a sample of 65 banks from the G20 Forum between 2015 and 2022, using a novel greenwashing indicator based on discrepancies between disclosure and action, where “action” is made up of environmental project lending, asset management, and investment strategies. Our findings reveal that a country's environmental performance and ESG ratings can help reduce greenwashing, with ESG ratings showing a moderate and significant negative association with greenwashing intensity, whereas environmental and legal frameworks may even encourage deceptive practices, likely due to inconsistencies arising from a fast‐evolving regulatory landscape and fragmented enforcement. Interestingly, while greater analyst coverage of a bank appears to increase the likelihood of greenwashing, public attention seems to have the opposite effect. This research contributes to understanding how external stakeholders can mitigate banks' greenwashing strategies and offers valuable insights for policymakers and regulators, suggesting that measures such as improving the quality of sustainability reporting standards and requiring third‐party verification of environmental claims can significantly strengthen banks' commitment to green initiatives and curb greenwashing.